DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 10/21/2025 have been fully considered but are moot in view of a new grounds of rejection.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 and 12 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In re claim 10, the limitation “a notification part that is disposed on the outside the handpiece, and provides notifications to an outside using sound or light” should read “a notification part that is disposed on the outside of the handpiece, and provides notifications to an outside using sound or light”.
In re claim 12, the limitation “further comprising a display which configured to display a plurality of icons each corresponding to one of the plurality of facial areas, and an icon representing a location of the handpiece.”, should read “further comprising a display which is configured to display a plurality of icons each corresponding to one of the plurality of facial areas, and an icon representing a location of the handpiece.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amir et al. (US 2018/0014777), in view of Hyde et al. (US 2015/0057622).
In re claim 1, Amir discloses a laser irradiation device (FIG. 2: 202; [0044]: “…application of light energy (e.g., light, laser…”) for medical treatment for irradiating a laser treatment target (abstract: “facial treatment…of a patient”) with a laser beam ([0044]: “laser”), the device comprising:
a handpiece (col. 9, lines 42-43) configured to irradiate the laser treatment target with a laser beam
a controller (210) configured to
identify facial components (FIG. 5), including a nose [0095] from a medical image data (FIG. 5) of a face (600) of the laser treatment target [0095],
set a plurality of facial areas (white regions indicated by markers 604, 608, 612, 616, 620) by dividing the medical image data of the face of the laser treatment target based on the individual facial components [0095],
set, on the basis of shapes of the plurality of facial areas, a guide shape (shapes of the white regions indicated by markers 604, 608, 612, 616 and 620) for emitting a laser beam, and
generate a control message to control the handpiece to irradiate the laser treatment target with the laser beam in the guide shape [0063, 0095].
Amir does not disclose a controller configured to
identify position coordinate values of individual facial components, including eyes, a nose and a mouth from a medical image data of a face of the laser treatment target,
set a plurality of facial areas by dividing the medical image data of the face of the laser treatment target based on coordinate values of the individual facial components,
Hyde discloses a device (FIG. 8: 700) that like Amir is focused on delivering treatment to a patient’s skin (abstract). The device includes a location-capture component (270) that measures a location of various physical landmarks on the patient’s skin surface including but not limited to: a nose, lip, check, eye, and brow[0075]. As disclosed by Hyde, the location capturing component can be an image capturing device [0077], an active scanner [0079], or an inertial navigation device [0082]. Hyde further discloses the location-capture component working together with processing circuitry to define the physical landmark’s locations as coordinate values that can later be mapped to a reference image of the patient’s skin surface [0084]. Fig. 8 shows an example of a mapped reference image (130), which shows several facial areas (1-6) identified for treatment [0116].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the controller discloses by Amir, to identify position coordinate values of facial components including eyes, a nose, and a mouth, as taught by Hyde. One would have been motivated to make this modification because using position coordinate values is a known way to represent/identify a location of a facial component. Moreover, one of ordinary skill in the art would have the ability to choose a method that would best meet their needs. Accordingly, such a modification would yield a controller configured to “set a plurality of facial areas by dividing the medical image data of the face of the laser treatment target based on coordinate values of the individual facial components”.
In re claim 11, the proposed combination yields (all mapping directed to Hyde), wherein the controller divides the medical image data of the face of the laser treatment target into the plurality of facial areas using lines connecting the coordinate values of the individual facial components (FIG. 8: 730).
In re claim 12, the proposed combination yields (all mapping directed to Amir) further comprising a display (220) which configured to display a plurality of icons, each corresponding to one of the plurality of facial areas, and an icon representing a location of the handpiece (FIG. 5; [0095]).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amir et al. (US 2018/0014777), in view of Hyde et al. (US 2015/0057622), in view of Hunziker (US 2023/0064129).
In re claim 2, the proposed combination yields (all mapping directed to Hyde) wherein the handpiece comprises:
a scanner (270; [0079]: “location-capture component includes an active scanner”) that is disposed inside the handpiece (FIG. 8), the scanner being configured to determine a location [0079, 0075], where the laser beam is emitted on the basis of the guide shape.
The proposed combination does not yield,
a scanner that is disposed inside a hand piece and includes at least one mirror
Hunziker discloses an analogous laser irradiation device (abstract; FIG. 2) that like the proposed combination, delivers laser treatment light (220) to a patient’s skin (230). As disclosed by Hunziker the laser treatment light is directed along a predefined path (222) by a scanner (210). The scanner includes a moveable mirror driven by an electric motor [0043] that can control the position of the moveable mirror in one, two or three axes [0124].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the scanner of the proposed combination, to include at least one mirror, as taught by Hunziker. One would have been motivated to make this modification because most laser scanners use moveable mirrors to manipulate the laser beams, as known by those in the art (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_scanning). Moreover, one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to choose the laser scanner (i.e., one with or without a mirror) that would best meet their needs.
Claims 3, 4, 6, 7, 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amir et al. (US 2018/0014777), in view of Hyde et al. (US 2015/0057622), in view of Hunziker (US 2023/0064129), in view of Altshuler et al. (US 2005/0154382).
In re claim 3, the proposed combination yields (all mapping directed to Amir) wherein the handpiece further comprises:
an imaging part (214; [0059]: “sensor(s) 214 may be an imaging sensor”) that acquires the medical image data by photographing the face of the laser treatment target ([0059]: “imaging sensor…captures still images…of the facial segment (and/or face)”; and
The proposed combination does not yield
an imaging part that is disposed outside the handpiece, and
a motion sensor module that is disposed on a side of the handpiece, detects movement of the handpiece, and acquires motion data.
Altshuler discloses an analogous handheld laser treatment device (abstract; FIG. 18). Altshuler further discloses the treatment device having a camera (1802) mounted to the device housing.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the imaging part taught by Hunziker, to be disposed on the outside of the handpiece, as taught by Altshuler. One would have been motivated to make this modification because disposing the camera on the outside of the device could offer an improved field of view. Accordingly, such a modification would yield “an imaging part that is disposed outside the handpiece and acquires the medical image data by photographing the face of the laser treatment target”.
Regarding the limitation “a motion sensor module that is disposed on a side of the handpiece, detects movement of the handpiece, and acquires motion data”, Hunziker further discloses the laser irradiation device including a location tracking device (240) disposed on a side of the handpiece (FIG. 2). The location tracking device provides location information ([0043]: “3D-coordinates”) and movement data ([0043]: “velocity, acceleration, angle”) as the hand piece is manipulated.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the handpiece of the proposed combination to include a motion sensor module that is disposed on a side of the handpiece, detects movement of the handpiece, and acquires motion data, as taught by Hunziker. One would have been motivated to make this modification to have the ability to keep track of the location of the handpiece and/or the treatment area to which laser light is being applied (Hunziker, [0049]).
In re claim 4, the proposed combination yields, (all mapping directed to Amir) wherein the guide shape for emitting the laser beam is set on the basis of data on the laser treatment target, which includes at least one of
a treatment case of the treatment target that has already been stored or newly input [0096, 0129], and
treatment conditions of the treatment target [0129].
In re claim 6, the proposed combination yields (all mapping directed to Amir) wherein the controller
distinguishes between an irradiation area and a non-irradiation area from the plurality of facial areas ([0129]: “what facial segment to apply treatment to”) , and
sets, in a circular or polygonal laser beam shape (FIG. 5), a shape excluding the non-irradiation area as the guide shape for delivering the laser beam (Examiner notes it is apparent that the shape provided will exclude the non-irradiation areas as the device is capable of determining what facial segment to apply treatment to [0129]).
In re claim 7, the proposed combination yields, (all mapping directed to Hunziker) wherein the scanner further comprises:
a mirror drive part ([0043]: “electric motor”) connected to the mirror configured to change a position and angle of the mirror ([0124]: “controlling the position of the movable mirror in one, two or three axes”; [0251]: “features, structures, or characteristics may be combined”)
wherein the mirror drive part receives the control message from the controller and adjusts the position and the angle of the mirror to a preset position and angle according to the guide shape [0124].
In re claim 8, the proposed combination yields (all mapping directed to Hunziker)
wherein the controller recognizes at least one facial area where a laser treatment has been completed from the plurality of facial areas on the basis of the acquired motion data (see above In re claim 3; As described in [0124] handpiece velocity (2212) and distance (2214) are the basis for determining a time (2216) which allows the controller to determine whether or not a target skin area has been treated).
In re claim 9, the proposed combination yields (all mapping directed to Amir unless indicated otherwise)
wherein the controller established a treatment plan for each area of the plurality of facial areas [0125, 0131]
wherein the treatment plan is a planned sequence for each of the plurality of facial areas so that a first facial area where a first laser treatment is completed and a second facial area where a second laser treatment will be performed after the first laser treatment do not overlap ([0129]; Examiner notes that treatment areas shown in FIG. 5 do not overlap with each other).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amir et al. (US 2018/0014777), in view of Hyde et al. (US 2015/0057622), in view of Hunziker (US 2023/0064129), in view of Altshuler et al. (US 2005/0154382), in view of Hewitson (US 2018/0111003).
In re claim 10, the proposed combination does not yield, wherein the handpiece further comprises:
a notification part that is disposed on the outside the handpiece and provides notifications to an outside using sound or light, and
the controller transmits a control message to the notification part to provide notifications when a position coordinate value of a first facial area where a first laser treatment is completed and a position coordinate value of a second facial area where a second laser treatment will be performed after the first laser treatment overlap.
Hewitson discloses an analogous handheld laser device (abstract; FIG. 1) that delivers laser therapy to a patient’s skin (abstract). The handheld laser device includes a motion sensor (2), temperature sensor (4), color sensor (5), controller (6), and a notification component (7) that is disposed on the outside of the handheld laser device (FIG. 1; [0050]). As disclosed by Hewitson, the controller includes a variety of programmed operations to mitigate skin damage [0061, 0062, 0065]. In one example, Hewitson discloses the controller using an alarm to notify a user when the device encounters tissue that has been previously irradiated [0062]. Hewitson further discloses the alarm being either a vibration, an audible sound, or flashing lights [0058].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the handpiece of the proposed combination to include a notification part that is disposed on the outside the hand piece and provides notifications to an outside using sound or light, as taught by Hewitson. One would have been motivated to make this modification because doing so would enable a user to easily obtain information about the treatment and/or the laser therapy device (Hewitson, [0050]).
Regarding the limitation “the controller transmits a control message to the notification part to provide notifications when a position coordinate value of a first facial area where a first laser treatment is completed and a position coordinate value of a second facial area where a second laser treatment will be performed after the first laser treatment overlap”, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the controller of the proposed combination so that it transmits a control message to the notification part to provide notifications when a position coordinate value of a first facial area where a first laser treatment is completed and a position coordinate value of a second facial area where a second laser treatment will be performed after the first laser treatment overlap, as taught by Hewitson. One would have been motivated to make this modification because doing so would help prevent skin damage caused by excessive irradiation (Hewiston, [0062]).
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Mukai (US 2002/0049432) discloses an analogous laser treatment apparatus (FIG. 2) with a handpiece (20).
Youngquist et al. (US 2019/0357976) discloses an analogous hand-held laser treatment apparatus (abstract; FIG. 1, FIG. 2) with a variety of internal components including an optical system (15) a beam scanning system (48) and sensor(s) (26).
Chang et al. (US 2019/0244274) discloses a computing device that recommends products based on facial analysis (abstract, Fig. 4).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLIVIA WALKER whose telephone number is (571)272-7052. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7-4pm CT.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, David Hamaoui can be reached at (571)-270-5625. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/OLIVIA WALKER/Examiner, Art Unit 3796
/DAVID HAMAOUI/SPE, Art Unit 3796